Wednesday, February 4, 2026

Why Poe Matters to the Boxing Videogame Community and Why That Makes Studios Uncomfortable

The boxing videogame community doesn’t suffer from a lack of voices.
It suffers from a lack of standards.

That’s where Poe enters the picture and why his presence matters far more than whether people agree with him or not.

Poe doesn’t bring hype.
He doesn’t bring blind optimism.
He doesn’t bring “it’s just a game” excuses.

He brings memory, accountability, and an expectation that boxing, as a craft, as a discipline, as a thinking sport, deserves to be treated with respect when translated into a videogame.

That alone makes him disruptive.

Poe Treats Boxing as a Craft, Not a Cosmetic

Most boxing game discussions start and end with:

Punch count
Knockouts
Flashy moments
Surface-level realism

Poe talks about:

Foot placement and weight transfer
Rhythm, breathing, fatigue, and pacing
Discipline, patience, and punishment
The uncomfortable reality that “boring” boxing is often great boxing

That reframes the entire conversation.

It quietly exposes a hard truth.
If a game doesn’t respect the subtleties, it doesn’t respect boxing.

A Voice Speaking for Boxers Who Don’t Speak at All

Poe is extremely passionate about boxing being represented properly in a boxing videogame, not just cosmetically, but structurally.

He often ends up speaking for:

Boxers who don’t care how they’re represented
Boxers who see it as “just an honor” to have their name in a game
Boxers who don’t understand how games shape public perception

Poe fills that vacuum.

Not to disrespect boxers, but to protect the sport when those closest to it don’t engage with how it’s portrayed digitally.

That’s a responsibility most people don’t want, and few take seriously.

He Occupies the Space Studios Fear Most

Studios are usually comfortable with two types of voices:

Fans who will defend anything
Critics who don’t understand boxing deeply enough to threaten design philosophy

Poe fits neither.

He doesn’t attack for clicks.
He doesn’t praise for access.
He doesn’t soften critiques to stay invited.

Instead, he questions foundations:

Why systems exist at all
What philosophy guided their design
Whether the game understands boxing logic beyond highlights

That kind of critique isn’t patchable.
It can’t be tuned away.
It demands introspection.

Poe Raises the Intelligence Floor of the Community

This may be the most threatening part.

Once someone explains why a mechanic feels wrong:

Players can’t unsee it
Marketing language stops working
Excuses stop landing

Involving Poe doesn’t calm a community. It educates it.

And an educated audience:

Asks better questions
Demands coherence
Sees through half-measures

That’s a long-term shift studios can’t easily control.

A Community Builder, Not a Divider

Poe isn’t just a critic. He’s a community-first builder.

Through his podcast and YouTube channel, he:

Creates space specifically for the boxing videogame community
Encourages dialogue instead of pile-ons
Pushes understanding, not tribalism
Keeps the conversation focused on boxing, not personalities

Most importantly, Poe is pro-options.

He doesn’t argue for one group of fans at the expense of another.
He argues for systems that allow:

Hardcore realism
Strategic depth
Accessibility through learning, not simplification

Options don’t isolate fans. They unify them. Poe understands that.

Poe Pushes Accountability, Not Engagement

Most studios chase engagement:

Clips
Buzz
Volume
Activity

Poe pushes accountability:

Why was this simplified
Why was realism compromised
Why does this system contradict boxing logic
Why are outcomes unearned

Engagement sells copies.
Accountability changes roadmaps.

That difference is everything.

Poe Refuses to Infantilize Boxing Fans

There’s an unspoken assumption in many modern sports games:

Players won’t notice depth
Players don’t want complexity
Players can’t handle realism

Poe openly rejects that assumption.

He argues that:

Depth doesn’t alienate casual players
Systems can teach without hand-holding
Boxing fans are smarter than studios assume

That challenges internal narratives used to justify shortcuts.

Why a Studio Might Avoid Involving Him

This isn’t about ego or personal dislike. It’s structural.

Involving someone like Poe seriously would mean:

Listening, not just appearing to listen
Reconsidering foundational decisions
Accepting that some criticisms can’t be solved with sliders
Admitting that certain design choices may have been wrong

Many studios want feedback, but not consequences.

Poe represents consequences.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Poe isn’t “too negative.”
He isn’t “toxic.”
He isn’t “too hardcore.”

He represents a version of a boxing game that demands:

Patience
Intelligence
Integrity
Long-term thinking

And once that comparison exists publicly, it never goes away.

Why Poe Ultimately Matters

Even when people disagree with Poe, they end up arguing on his terms:

Boxing vs spectacle
Depth vs accessibility
Craft vs flash

That’s influence.

Poe doesn’t just comment on boxing videogames.
He protects boxing’s identity within them, builds community around that identity, and pushes for a future where no group of fans is locked out.

Whether studios listen now or later, voices like Poe are why the future of boxing videogames doesn’t have to be hollow, shallow, or disposable.

Why boxing and gaming fans must demand a survey now, if SCI is making Undisputed 2

If Steel City Interactive is even thinking about Undisputed 2, this is the most important moment fans will ever get. Not after trailers. Not after beta. Not after launch. Now.
A real survey right now isn’t a “nice to have.” It’s the difference between a boxing game that evolves—and one that just repackages the same arguments with better lighting.

1. This is the last window where foundations can still change

Once a sequel moves past pre-production, the big stuff is locked:

core movement and footwork philosophy
stamina and fatigue logic
AI behavior models
career mode structure
offline vs online priorities

A survey after these are decided is performative. A survey before them is power.

If fans don’t speak now, they’re agreeing—silently—to whatever direction gets chosen.

2. Without a survey, devs only hear the loudest 5%

Right now, feedback comes from:

stream chat
Discord arguments
Twitter/X pile-ons
YouTube comment sections

That is not “the community.” That’s the most online, most reactive slice of it.

A structured survey:

captures quiet offline players
captures career-mode lifers
captures sim fans who don’t stream
captures boxing heads who don’t argue online

Silence gets mistaken for approval. A survey fixes that.

3. A survey forces clarity instead of endless circular debates

Right now, everything sounds like:

“Make it more realistic.”
“Don’t overcomplicate it.”
“It should feel like boxing.”
“It’s just a game.”

Those phrases mean nothing without data.

A real survey asks things like:

Do you prefer long tactical rounds or short explosive ones?
Should elite defense be rare and frustrating, or always breakable?
Should stamina punish poor footwork or just punch spam?
Do you mainly play offline, online, or both equally?
Do you want losses in career mode to feel earned, even if they hurt?

That’s how opinions turn into design direction.

4. Undisputed 2 will define the genre for years

There are not five boxing games competing right now. There’s basically one flagship lane.

Whatever Undisputed 2 becomes will:

set expectations for future boxing games
influence funding decisions
decide whether boxing games chase sim depth or arcade safety

If fans don’t demand input, they’re handing the steering wheel away for another console generation.

5. Surveys protect devs from the wrong kind of backlash

Here’s the irony: a survey actually helps SCI.

When decisions are backed by:

“X% of players preferred this”
“Offline players ranked this as their top priority”
“Career mode users overwhelmingly asked for this system”

…then backlash becomes harder to weaponize.
Data becomes armor.

No survey means every decision feels arbitrary, and every update feels personal.

6. Quiet fans are the majority, and they’re the ones being ignored

The loudest voices often want:

faster KOs
fewer layers
simpler answers

But the quiet majority often wants:

systems that reward patience
careers that feel earned
boxers that fight like boxers, not templates

A survey is the only way those players get represented.

7. If fans don’t ask now, they lose the right to complain later

This is the uncomfortable truth.

If Undisputed 2 drops and:

career mode is shallow
AI still feels generic
footwork still lacks nuance
offline players feel sidelined

…and no one pushed for a survey when it mattered?
That’s not just on the devs anymore.

Here is why saying “the developers already know what we want, they do not need a survey” is a bad position to take.

It replaces evidence with ego

No group of developers, content creators, or loud fans represents the entire community. Saying developers “already know” assumes personal preferences equal majority opinion. That is not insight. That is projection.

Surveys do one thing opinions cannot. They turn feelings into measurable data. Without data, developers are guessing. Guessing is how features get cut, systems get simplified, and excuses get justified later.

It protects bad assumptions

When surveys are avoided, false narratives survive.

Boxing is slow.
Casual players do not want depth.
Career mode does not matter.
Simulation does not sell.

Surveys challenge those assumptions. Without them, developers can hide behind internal beliefs instead of being challenged by real player behavior.

It gives developers cover to ignore criticism

When content creators say “trust the devs, they know what they are doing,” it removes accountability. Developers can point to engagement numbers, sales, or social media noise and say, “The community did not ask for this.”

A survey forces clarity. If ten thousand players say they want deeper footwork, stamina realism, or ranking politics, that cannot be brushed off as “a vocal minority.”

It silences quieter players

Not every fan posts on social media. Not every boxing fan watches streams or argues online. Many older fans, amateur boxers, trainers, and purists do not engage publicly, but they are the ones who want realism the most.

Surveys give those people a voice. Saying surveys are unnecessary only amplifies the loudest personalities and ignores everyone else.

It confuses feedback with noise

Comments, likes, and reaction videos are not structured feedback. They are emotional snapshots. Developers cannot design systems from vibes.

A proper survey asks specific questions:

What modes matter most?
What realism systems feel missing?
Where does frustration actually come from?
What depth is worth learning?

Without that structure, feedback becomes chaos, and chaos gets ignored.

It locks the genre in mediocrity

Boxing games are already rare. They cannot afford guesswork. When fans discourage surveys, they are helping developers repeat safe, shallow design choices instead of evolving the genre.

Every serious sports game that grew did so by studying its audience, not assuming it knew better than them.

It creates an unhealthy power dynamic

When content creators position themselves as translators for the community, surveys become a threat. A survey removes gatekeeping. It lets players speak directly, without filters, spin, or monetized opinions.

That is why some people resist them, even if they do not realize it.

The truth

Surveys do not replace developer vision. They sharpen it.

If a game truly represents what fans want, a survey will confirm it. If it does not, a survey exposes the gap early, before trust is lost and excuses start piling up.

Rejecting surveys is not confidence. It is fear of being wrong.

And for a genre fighting for respect, that mindset is self-sabotage.

The bottom line

A survey right now isn’t entitlement.
It’s basic respect between creators and the people keeping the genre alive.

If Undisputed 2 is coming, fans should be saying, clearly and collectively:

“Before you build the future of boxing games, ask us what boxing actually means to us.”

This is the moment.
Miss it, and the conversation resets to arguments instead of progress.

Monday, February 2, 2026

Boxing Videogames Do Not Fail by Accident. They Fail by Disrespect.

Boxing does not struggle in videogames because the sport is difficult. It struggles because too many game companies do not respect it enough to understand it.

That disrespect shows up everywhere. In design choices. In marketing language. In how fans are talked to. In how boxers are represented. In the constant lowering of expectations before the first punch is even thrown.

Boxing is treated as something that must be simplified to survive, when in reality, its depth is the very thing that could make a boxing videogame great.

Boxing Is Handled Like a Risk Instead of a Legacy

When studios approach boxing, they approach it cautiously, as if the sport itself is a liability. Development decisions are framed around fear. Fear that systems will be “too deep.” Fear that players will not understand stamina. Fear that footwork and positioning are too complicated. Fear that authenticity will scare people away.

That fear does not exist when other sports are made into games.

Football games embrace playbooks, audibles, and personnel packages. Basketball games dive into spacing, tendencies, momentum, and fatigue. Racing games simulate tire wear, fuel, weather, and aerodynamics.

Boxing, however, is constantly stripped down. Mechanics are shaved away. Nuance is removed. What remains is a shallow shell that resembles boxing visually but not spiritually.

That is not a limitation of the sport. It is a limitation of imagination.

Simplifying Boxing Does Not Make It Accessible. It Makes It Hollow.

There is a persistent belief in the industry that boxing must be reduced for casual players. That belief is not only wrong, it is damaging.

Casual players are not afraid of learning. They are afraid of boredom.

A player does not become invested in boxing by landing random punches. They become invested when they understand why one decision worked and another failed. When they feel the consequences of fatigue. When they learn how range, timing, and patience win fights.

A great boxing videogame would teach players how boxing works without lecturing them. It would turn curiosity into understanding and understanding into appreciation.

When companies refuse to build that bridge, they rob boxing of one of its most powerful growth tools.

Boxing Fans Are Not the Problem. They Are the Resource.

Few fanbases are as knowledgeable or as passionate as boxing fans, yet they are treated like an obstacle rather than an asset.

When fans ask for realism, they are told they are impossible to satisfy. When they ask for depth, they are accused of nostalgia. When they point out flaws, they are labeled negative or toxic.

This attitude reveals a fundamental misunderstanding.

Boxing fans are not asking for fantasy. They are asking for the sport they already love to be represented with care. They want systems that reflect real decisions, real consequences, and real styles.

Ignoring that knowledge does not protect a game. It weakens it.

Boxers Are Reduced to Marketing Assets Instead of Individuals

Perhaps the most insulting aspect of modern boxing games is how boxers themselves are handled.

In real life, no two boxers move the same. No two boxers think the same. No two boxers fight the same fight. These differences are the heart of boxing.

In many videogames, those differences barely exist.

Boxers share animations. They share movement logic. They share reactions. Their identities are flattened into ratings and cosmetics. Legends become skins. Styles become presets.

A boxing game should allow players to recognize a boxer before the name appears on screen. When that does not happen, the sport loses its soul.

Presentation Without Meaning Is Empty

Boxing is drama. It is anticipation. It is ritual. It is pressure building round by round.

Yet boxing games often present fights like disconnected exhibitions. Walkouts feel lifeless. Crowds lack momentum. Commentary feels detached. The emotional stakes that define real fights are absent.

This is not a budget issue. It is a priority issue.

When presentation is treated as decoration instead of storytelling, boxing loses its power to captivate new fans.

A Boxing Videogame Can Create Fans for Life. Or None at All.

This is the part the industry keeps missing.

A boxing videogame is not just a product. It is a gateway.

For many players, a game will be their first meaningful exposure to boxing. That experience will shape how they view the sport. It can spark curiosity, respect, and fandom. Or it can leave them thinking boxing is shallow, repetitive, and uninteresting.

That responsibility should matter.

When companies rush development, ignore expertise, and dismiss criticism, they are not just releasing a flawed game. They are misrepresenting an entire sport.

Respect Is Not Optional

Boxing does not need to be reinvented. It needs to be understood.

It needs developers who are willing to study the sport. Designers who respect its subtleties. Producers who trust players to learn. And studios that value long-term legacy over short-term convenience.

Respect the sport, and the design will follow.
Respect the fans, and the community will grow.
Respect the boxers, and the game will finally feel alive.

Until then, boxing videogames will continue to fall short, not because boxing is too complex, but because it is not being taken seriously enough.

Friday, January 30, 2026

A Call to Action to Steel City Interactive’s Designer(s)

This is not an attack.

This is not hate.
This is not “fans telling developers how to do their jobs.”

This is a call to action—because the window to get the next boxing game right is shrinking.

Stop designing in a vacuum

Boxing is not a generic sport, and boxing fans are not interchangeable with other sports audiences. Designing systems based on assumptions, internal consensus, or loud online subsets has already shown its limits.

The community has done something rare: it organized its expectations, criticisms, and ideas into a coherent, system-focused framework. Ignoring that doesn’t protect creative control—it increases risk.

Use The Boxing Blueprint/Wishlist as a diagnostic tool

No one is asking you to copy it feature for feature. The ask is simpler and more professional:

Use it to pressure-test design decisions
Use it to spot missing systems early
Use it to understand why certain frustrations keep repeating
Use it to separate short-term noise from long-term value

This is what good designers do. They seek friction before the market creates it for them.

Boxing games live or die on depth, not hype

Flashy trailers, licenses, and surface-level realism won’t carry a sequel. Boxing fans stay when:

AI behaves like real boxers, not puppets
Career modes feel authored, not procedural
Presentation respects the sport’s culture and history
Offline play feels complete, not secondary

These are not “wishlist fantasies.” They are retention pillars.

The community you’re overlooking is the one that stays

Casual players may sample. Competitive players may stream.
But long-term boxing fans:

Buy full-price
Play offline for years
Evangelize when trust is earned
Abandon franchises when they feel dismissed

Designing without them is how franchises stall.

This is about credibility, not control

Engaging with structured community work does not weaken authority. It strengthens it. Studios that last:

Listen without posturing
Filter without ego
Adapt without overcorrecting

If your design vision is strong, it will survive scrutiny. If it isn’t, it’s better to know now.

To designers like Jason Darby and others at SCI

You don’t need to win arguments online.
You don’t need to promise the world.
You don’t need to defend the past forever.

What you do need is alignment—between:

The sport
The systems
The audience
The future of the franchise

The Boxing Blueprint/Wishlist exists because people still care enough to do the work for free.

That won’t last forever.

The bottom line

This is the moment where you either:

Build the foundation for a respected, long-running boxing series
Or repeat the cycle of excuses, patches, and lost trust

The community has handed you a map.
You don’t have to follow every road—but pretending the map doesn’t exist is the real mistake.

Use it. Engage with it. Challenge it.
That’s how better games get made.

Thursday, January 29, 2026

Who Should Playtest a Realistic Boxing Videogame and Why Competitive Gamers Are Not the Starting Point

A realistic boxing videogame cannot be playtested by a single group. Boxing is a sport built on consequence, fatigue, positioning, psychology, and long term decision making. Because of that, playtesting must be layered and intentional. Who tests first defines what the game becomes.

The Core Principle

Competitive gamers should absolutely be involved in playtesting.
They just should not be the first, primary, or loudest voices when realism is the goal.

That is not disrespect. That is role clarity.

What Different Playtesters Optimize For

Competitive gamers optimize for winning, efficiency, frame advantage, input speed, and dominant strategies.

Realistic boxing optimizes for risk versus reward, punishment for mistakes, fatigue, recovery, positioning, timing, and style identity.

Those priorities overlap in some areas, but they are not the same. When competitive priorities lead early development, realism erodes quickly.

Who Should Playtest First and Why

Boxers, amateur and professional
They immediately recognize fake movement, unrealistic pacing, unsafe punch recovery, and incorrect distance. They feel when footwork, balance, and fatigue are wrong.

Trainers, coaches, and cornermen
They understand boxing as a system. They test whether styles make sense over rounds, whether adjustments matter, and whether pacing and strategy evolve naturally.

Boxing historians and analysts
They ensure that styles, eras, and legendary fighters do not collapse into reskinned templates. Boxing realism is also historical realism.

Simulation focused boxing gamers
Offline and career focused players stress test AI behavior, long term balance, slider systems, and replay value. They expose repetition and shallow systems.

Only after those foundations are correct should the next group step in.

Where Competitive Gamers Actually Excel

Competitive gamers are specialists, not architects.

They are excellent at:

Finding exploits
Breaking systems
Stress testing input buffering
Identifying dominant strategies
Pressure testing responsiveness and online play

That work belongs in late stage development, not at the foundation.

What Happens When Competitive Gamers Lead Too Early

When competitive gamers dominate early playtesting:

Punches get faster and safer
Defense becomes overly strong
Stamina stops mattering
Risk disappears
Everyone fights the same way
The meta replaces boxing

The game may be balanced, but it stops being boxing.

The Order Is Everything

This is the part many people miss.

Who playtests first defines the game’s identity.
Who playtests last refines it.

If realism is established first, competitive play adapts to boxing.
If competition is established first, boxing adapts to competition.

Those are completely different outcomes.

A Simple Analogy

You do not ask esports racers to design a real race car.
You ask engineers and drivers first.

Then you let competitive players push the limits after the machine exists.

Same logic applies to boxing.

The Bottom Line

Competitive gamers are not the enemy.
They are just not the authority on realism.

If boxers, trainers, and historians do not recognize themselves in the ring, no amount of competitive balance will save the experience.

So the real question is not who should be excluded.

The real question is this:

Are we building a boxing simulation, or a competitive game that happens to use boxing animations?

That decision starts with who you let touch the game first.

The Boxing Videogame Fans Want: Poe & the Community’s Core Expectations

Poe & The Fans’ Expectations for a Boxing Videogame

(Blueprint + Wishlist Edition)

1. Core Philosophy (Non-Negotiable)

Boxing is a system of decisions, not a reaction game
Mechanics must be contextual, not universal
No system should exist in isolation (movement, stamina, damage, AI must talk to each other)
The game must support multiple truths of boxing, not one “correct” way to play
Realism ≠ slow, clunky, or boring
→ realism = consequences

2. Movement, Footwork & Ring Geography (Blueprint Priority)

True ring generalship (cutting off the ring actually works)
Lateral movement drains stamina differently than forward pressure
Back-foot fighters gain efficiency, not invincibility
Footwork types:
- Creeping pressure steps
- Bounce-in / bounce-out rhythm
- Pivot-heavy angle creators
- Flat-footed plodders
Bad foot placement causes:
- Slower recovery
- Reduced punch power
- Balance penalties
Rope proximity affects:
- Punch selection
- Defensive options
- AI decision trees
Corner trapping is earned, not scripted

3. Punching Systems (Beyond “Light / Heavy”)

Punches have intent:
- Range-finders
- Disruptors
- Damage dealers
- Setups
Punch effectiveness affected by:
- Stance
- Distance
- Momentum
- Fatigue
- Balance
Missed punches matter (whiffs cost energy and position)
Arm fatigue exists separately from cardio fatigue
Punch speed drops late—even for elite boxers
Body punches:
- Reduce punch output later
- Affect get-up speed
- Change AI confidence

4. Defense Is Not Binary

Slipping early vs late produces different outcomes
Blocking drains stamina and vision
High guard vs cross-arm vs shell are situational, not cosmetic
Defensive habits develop over rounds
Panic defense exists
Defensive IQ separates elites from journeymen

5. Damage, Hurt States & Fight Flow (Blueprint Core)

Hurt states are layered, not on/off:
- Flash hurt
- Accumulated damage
- Systemic fatigue
- Psychological pressure
Getting rocked changes:
- Punch selection
- Footwork confidence
- AI aggression
Some boxers get reckless when hurt
Some survive by instinct
Some mentally break
Knockdowns are physics + context, not RNG
Recovery varies by:
- Chin
- Experience
- Corner quality
- Damage type

6. AI That Thinks Like a Boxer

AI must have preferences, not scripts
Every boxer has:
- Comfort zones
- Risk tolerance
- Fight IQ ceiling
- Emotional responses
AI adapts between rounds, not instantly
AI can:
- Steal rounds
- Protect a lead
- Chase desperation KOs
- Survive ugly
AI mistakes are intentional—not bugs

7. Tendencies, Capabilities & Personality Sliders (Wishlist Staple)

100+ tendency(not all visible, optional) sliders, including:
- Patience under pressure
- Body punch commitment
- Clinch reliance
- Feint frequency
- Late-round discipline
Capability sliders:
- Recovery rate
- Balance retention
- Damage resistance by zone
Traits override sliders contextually
Sliders affect AI and player-controlled boxers
No hidden rubber-banding

8. Clinch, Inside Fighting & Dirty Boxing

Clinch is a micro-game, not a pause
Hand fighting matters
Ref variability:
- Quick breaks
- Warnings
- Point deductions
Inside specialists gain advantages
Fatigue heavily influences clinch outcomes
Clinch abuse is punishable organically

9. Career Mode Must Be a Simulation

Career arcs:
- Early hype
- Plateau
- Reinvention
- Decline
Layoffs affect timing and stamina
Injuries alter training and fight plans
Training camps:
- Style-based
- Trainer-dependent
- Consequence-driven
Bad matchmaking can ruin careers
Titles are not guaranteed
Losses matter—but don’t end careers unrealistically

10. Trainers, Gyms & Corners (Blueprint Expansion)

Trainers have philosophies
Corners affect:
- Recovery
- Confidence
- Tactical shifts
Bad advice exists
Elite trainers unlock strategic layers
Gym culture influences tendencies

11. Presentation as Storytelling

Crowd reacts to momentum, not just KOs
Commentary references:
- Fight narrative
- Past performances
- Style matchups
Ring walks reflect psychology
Post-fight reactions differ for:
- Robberies
- Dominant wins
- Wars
Presentation respects eras and cultures

12. Creation & Player Freedom (Sacred Ground)

Create-A-Boxer is a system editor
Create trainers, gyms, and stables
Share and import creations freely
Creations behave correctly in AI hands
No artificial caps that break realism
Offline-first philosophy

13. Balance Philosophy (Where Most Games Fail)

Realism modes vs sport modes
Sliders > forced balance
No patch that erases styles
Fix exploits without flattening identity
Accept that some styles counter others

14. Developer Accountability Expectations

Stop hiding behind “first game” excuses
Stop blaming realism for bad design
Communicate design intent honestly
Build modular systems
Respect boxing knowledge outside the studio
Treat offline fans as first-class citizens

15. What The Blueprint Explicitly Rejects

Universal mechanics
Animation-first design
Esports-only priorities
Fake depth via cosmetics
“Press to win” systems
Ignoring boxing history

Final Truth

Poe and the fans aren’t asking for nostalgia.
They’re asking for evolution, a boxing videogame built like a sport, not a skin-deep product.

Do You Have to Be a Boxer to Make a Realistic Boxing Videogame?

And Are Boxers, Trainers, Historians, and Film Study Needed in the Studio?

This debate keeps resurfacing, and it keeps derailing meaningful discussion.

The claim is simple and sounds logical on the surface:
“If you have never boxed, you cannot make a realistic boxing videogame.”

It is also wrong. Worse, it has become a convenient shield used to defend shallow mechanics, weak AI, and underdeveloped systems.

The truth is more nuanced, less romantic, and far more demanding.

1. The Fundamental Mistake: Confusing Experience With Translation

Boxing experience and the ability to model boxing are not the same skill.

A boxer:

Reacts instinctively
Adjusts subconsciously
Operates on feel, rhythm, and habit

A videogame:

Requires explicit rules
Requires measurable variables
Must expose cause and effect
Must behave consistently across thousands of situations

If someone cannot clearly explain why something happens in boxing in repeatable terms, they cannot design it. That is true regardless of how much they boxed.

Realism in games comes from translation, not participation.

2. Boxing Videogames Are Systems, Not Memories

A realistic boxing videogame is not built from personal recollection.

It is built from interacting systems:

Distance and spacing
Timing and initiative
Risk and commitment
Fatigue and recovery
Damage accumulation
Psychological pressure
Tactical decision making
AI adaptation

If even one of these systems is shallow, the illusion of boxing breaks. No amount of boxing background compensates for weak system design.

Systems do not care about résumés.

3. Why Boxing Experience Alone Often Hurts Design

This is uncomfortable but necessary to say.

When boxing experience is treated as unquestionable authority, it often leads to:

Gut feeling overriding structure
“That would never happen” logic ignoring edge cases
Resistance to abstraction
Designing for ego instead of outcomes
Confusing restriction with realism

Real boxing is messy. Fighters make bad decisions. They panic. They abandon game plans. They repeat mistakes.

Games that chase “authentic feel” without systems often erase these realities and replace them with clean, heroic, predictable behavior. That is not realism. It is fantasy boxing.

4. The Question Studios Should Ask, But Rarely Do

The important question is not:
“Did you box?”

It is:
“Can you explain your boxing systems under pressure?”

Ask any developer:

Why does missing a punch matter?
How does stamina change decision making?
What happens when a fighter panics?
How do tendencies override player intent?
What stops perfect defense?
How does distance actually punish mistakes?

If the answers are vague, defensive, or rely on “you would understand if you boxed,” the systems are weak.

5. Realism Is Behavioral, Not Visual

Most boxing games chase realism in the wrong place.

They focus on:

Motion capture
Punch variety
Broadcast presentation
Big cinematic moments

Realism lives in behavior:

Fighters freezing after being clipped
Pressure fighters overcommitting when tired
Slick boxers losing discipline late
Bad habits surfacing under stress
Styles clashing in unpredictable ways

These are AI and systems problems, not animation problems. Boxing experience does not automatically solve them.

6. Where Boxers, Trainers, Historians, and Film Study Actually Fit

Yes, these roles are needed. But they are not designers. They are domain authorities.

Boxers

Boxers are invaluable for:

Describing emotional and psychological pressure
Identifying when behavior feels fake
Explaining what happens when plans break down

They validate outcomes, not implementations.

Trainers

Trainers are often more useful than boxers for:

Tactical structure
Adjustment logic
Style matchups
Discipline versus chaos
Long term habit formation

They think in systems naturally, which maps well to AI behavior.

Historians

Historians prevent modern bias and flattening of styles.
They help with:

Era specific pacing and rules
Style evolution
Cultural approaches to boxing
Avoiding present day assumptions

Without them, every era plays the same.

Film Study

Film study is non negotiable.

Not highlights. Not montages. Full rounds.

Film study reveals:

True exchange frequency
Miss rates
Recovery time
Distance errors
Repetitive habits
Ugly, uncinematic moments

Film settles arguments and replaces memory with evidence.

7. The Correct Studio Structure

This is where studios succeed or fail.

Systems designers and AI engineers build the mechanics, rules, sliders, states, and penalties.
Boxers, trainers, and historians validate outcomes, flag unrealistic behavior, and provide correction.
Film study acts as the final authority when opinions conflict.

When boxing authorities override systems design, realism suffers.
When systems ignore boxing authorities, realism collapses.
When film study is missing, ego replaces evidence.

8. Why the Myth Persists

The “you must have boxed” argument survives because it is useful.

It shuts down criticism.
It avoids accountability.
It reframes design flaws as ignorance.

If realism were actually present, it would not need gatekeeping to defend it.

9. The Truth About Hybrid Games and False Realism

Many boxing games are intentionally hybrids:

Forgiving timing
Artificial momentum
Overpowered defense
Predictable AI behavior

They feel like boxing.
They look like boxing.
They are not simulations.

Calling them realistic lowers the bar and poisons the conversation about what is possible.

Realism is about consequence, not comfort.

10.

You do not need to be a boxer to make a realistic boxing videogame.

You do need:

Deep systems thinking
Respect for the sport
Willingness to embrace discomfort
Obsession with cause and effect
Courage to let fights be messy, ugly, and unfair

Boxing games do not fail because developers did not box.

They fail because developers did not design boxing deeply enough.

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

My Expectations as a Fan of Boxing for an AI Programmer Building a Truly Realistic Boxing Videogame (Unreal Engine)

A realistic boxing videogame demands an AI system that simulates boxer identity, not just opponent difficulty. The expectation is an AI architecture capable of producing thousands of distinct boxing behaviors through layered sliders, traits, tendencies, mannerisms, and contextual decision-making—without hardcoding outcomes or relying on artificial boosts.

This is not about spectacle. It is about authenticity, variability, and systemic depth.

1) Foundational Principle: Boxing AI Is a Behavioral Ecosystem

The AI must be designed as a multi-layered behavioral ecosystem, where:

Capabilities define what is physically and mentally possible
Tendencies define what is preferred
Traits define what overrides normal behavior
Mannerisms define how behavior is expressed
Psychology defines why behavior changes
Context defines when behavior shifts

Every action taken by the AI should be explainable through these layers.

2) Capability Sliders (What the Boxer Is Capable Of)

Capabilities are not “ratings.” They are constraints and consistency modifiers.

A) Offensive Capabilities

Jab speed
Jab accuracy
Jab recovery
Jab authority (ability to disrupt rhythm)
Straight punch mechanics
Lead hook mechanics
Rear hook mechanics
Uppercut timing precision
Punch chaining fluidity
Punch commitment control (ability to bail mid-action)
Punch retraction speed
Punching balance retention
Power transfer efficiency
Hand speed under fatigue
Punch accuracy decay rate

B) Defensive Capabilities

Static guard integrity
Dynamic guard adjustment speed
Parry window size
Slip window precision
Roll execution reliability
Pull-counter balance retention
Recovery defense (defense while hurt)
Counter-defense transition speed
Guard recovery after impact
Defensive mistake rate under pressure

C) Footwork & Movement Capabilities

Forward pressure balance
Backward movement control
Lateral movement efficiency
Pivot sharpness
Angle exit reliability
Stance stability under fire
Cut-off geometry awareness
Rope awareness
Corner escape capability
Momentum control (stop/start movement)
Footwork degradation under fatigue

D) Athletic & Physical Capabilities

Aerobic stamina
Anaerobic burst capacity
Fatigue recovery rate
Balance under contact
Chin durability
Body durability
Leg durability
Torque generation
Injury resistance
Injury compensation ability

E) Cognitive & Ring IQ Capabilities

Read accuracy
Read speed
Pattern recognition
Deception recognition
Counter timing precision
Gameplan retention
Adjustment speed
Feint interpretation skill
Risk calculation accuracy

Capabilities answer:
“Can this boxer do this, and how well?”

3) Tendency Sliders (What the Boxer Prefers to Do)

This layer must be extensive, granular, and directly wired into decision weighting.

A) Engagement Tendencies

Pressure frequency
Reset frequency
Exchange willingness
Initiation bias
Clinch seeking frequency
Clinch avoidance
Late-round urgency
Early-round caution
Come-forward persistence
Retreat tolerance

B) Shot Selection Tendencies

Jab-first preference
Double-jab preference
Jab-to-body preference
Jab-to-head preference
Lead hook usage
Rear straight usage
Rear hook usage
Uppercut frequency
Body shot prioritization
Head-hunting bias
Single-shot preference
Combination preference
Combination length bias

C) Defensive Habit Tendencies

High guard reliance
Shell usage
Long guard usage
Slip-left vs slip-right bias
Roll preference
Pull-counter preference
Parry-first behavior
Catch-and-shoot preference
Defense-to-offense immediacy

D) Footwork Habit Tendencies

Circle-left bias
Circle-right bias
Pivot frequency
Step-out vs step-back preference
Angle-after-punch behavior
Rope escape preference
Rope trap avoidance
Ring center priority
Cut-off commitment

E) Psychological Tendencies

Patience vs impatience
Risk tolerance
Revenge behavior after being hit
Emotional volatility
Confidence gain rate
Confidence loss rate
Showboating likelihood
Discipline under pressure

F) Finish Tendencies

Swarm instinct
Sniper instinct
Trap-setting instinct
Body-first finishing
Head-first finishing
Finish patience
Overcommit risk when opponent is hurt

Tendencies answer:
“Given multiple valid options, which does this boxer lean toward?”

4) Trait System (Rule-Based Overrides)

Traits must act as conditional modifiers or logic overrides, not flavor text.

Examples

Dangerous when hurt
Slow starter / fast starter
Momentum fighter
Body investment specialist
Clinch disruptor
Late-round closer
Veteran round thief
Glass hands
Iron chin
Crowd-responsive
Emotionally fragile
Ice-cold under pressure

Traits can:

Temporarily override tendencies
Expand or shrink decision windows
Alter risk calculations
Trigger unique behavioral states

5) Mannerism Sliders (How the Boxer Expresses Behavior)

Mannerisms provide human texture.

Mannerisms must scale with:

Fatigue
Damage
Confidence
Fight context

6) Psychology & Internal State Modeling

AI must maintain internal states such as:

Confidence
Composure
Frustration
Momentum perception
Perceived opponent danger
Urgency awareness (round, score)

These states directly modify:

Reaction speed
Risk tolerance
Shot commitment
Defensive caution

7) Ringcraft & Spatial Intelligence

The AI must treat the ring as a tactical environment:

Center control goals
Exit lane evaluation
Rope danger scoring
Corner risk evaluation
Trap construction logic
Escape prioritization

Movement decisions must be intentional, not reactive chasing.

8) Opportunity-Based Decision Making

Punches are chosen based on:

Guard gaps
Weight transfer moments
Rhythm breaks
Post-punch vulnerability
Counter exposure risk

AI must be capable of:

Feint-aborts
Half-commits
Combo truncation
Opportunistic counters

9) Fatigue, Damage, and Injury Integration

Fatigue and damage must:

Reduce available actions
Change preferred tactics
Increase mistake probability
Alter mannerisms and posture

A tired boxer must look, move, and think tired.

10) Unreal Engine Implementation Expectations

The AI programmer must demonstrate mastery of:

DataAssets / DataTables for all sliders
Behavior Trees or StateTree for high-level logic
Animation Montages and Motion Warping
Clean AI ↔ animation ↔ hit reaction loops
Network-safe execution (if applicable)

Designers must be able to tune behavior without touching code.

11) Debugging & Tooling (Non-Negotiable)

Required tools include:

Live decision overlays
Slider visualization
Ring heatmaps
Behavior logs
Adaptation tracking
Replay consistency controls

12) Adaptation & Anti-Exploit Logic

AI must detect and counter:

Repeated attack patterns
Excessive retreating
Guard-only defense
Predictable combos

Adaptation should be gradual and believable, not instant omniscience.

13) Expected Deliverables from the AI Programmer

A qualified AI programmer should deliver:

A deep, slider-driven identity system
Extensive tendency libraries
Trait-based behavior overrides
Mannerism and psychology layers
Ringcraft intelligence
Opportunity-based combat logic
Robust debug and tuning tools

Final Expectation

A realistic boxing videogame does not need smarter AI.
It needs deeper AI—AI that reflects the complexity of boxing itself.

The goal is not to beat the player unfairly.
The goal is to create fights that feel earned, varied, human, and endlessly replayable.

If Poe were hiring an AI Programmer with Unreal Engine Experience

Senior AI Programmer – Boxing Simulation (Unreal Engine)

Project Type: Realistic / Simulation-Driven Boxing Videogame
Focus: Offline + Online Parity, Systemic Depth, Long-Term Expandability

Role Overview

This role exists to build the core intelligence of the boxing experience.

The Senior AI Programmer will design and implement a deep, identity-driven boxing AI system that produces believable, stylistically distinct boxers through extensive sliders, traits, tendencies, mannerisms, psychology, and contextual decision-making—not scripted behaviors or artificial difficulty boosts.

This is not a “combat AI” role in the traditional sense.
This is a boxing intelligence role.

Vision & Non-Negotiables

The AI must:

Represent boxing as it is actually practiced
Produce thousands of distinct boxer identities
Be designer-driven, not programmer-locked
Scale across eras, styles, and difficulty levels
Remain transparent, debuggable, and tunable
Never rely on hidden cheats or input reading

Difficulty must emerge from:

Better reads
Smarter decisions
Fewer mistakes
Greater discipline
Improved adaptation

—not from inflated stats or unfair reactions.

Core AI Philosophy

Boxing AI is treated as a behavioral ecosystem, not a single brain.

The system must clearly separate:

Capabilities – what a boxer can do
Tendencies – what a boxer prefers to do
Traits – what overrides normal behavior
Mannerisms – how behavior is expressed
Psychology – why behavior changes
Context – when behavior shifts

Every AI decision should be explainable through these layers.

Primary Responsibilities

1. AI Architecture & Systems Design

Design a layered AI architecture including:
- Perception
- Intent & round planning
- Tactical evaluation
- Opportunity & risk scoring
- Action selection
- Execution & animation handoff
- Adaptation & learning
Ensure the system supports emergent behavior, not scripted outcomes.

2. Capability Slider Framework (Extensive)

Build a large-scale capability system covering:

Offensive Capabilities

Jab speed, accuracy, recovery, authority
Punch mechanics by type (straight, hook, uppercut)
Combination fluidity
Balance retention
Punch retraction speed
Power transfer efficiency
Accuracy decay under fatigue

Defensive Capabilities

Guard integrity (static & dynamic)
Parry window precision
Slip and roll reliability
Recovery defense
Counter-defense transition speed
Defensive degradation under pressure

Footwork & Movement

Forward/backward control
Lateral efficiency
Pivot sharpness
Angle exit reliability
Cut-off geometry awareness
Rope and corner awareness
Movement degradation under fatigue

Athletic & Physical

Aerobic stamina
Anaerobic burst
Fatigue recovery
Balance under contact
Chin, body, and leg durability
Injury resistance and compensation

Cognitive / Ring IQ

Read accuracy and speed
Pattern recognition
Deception recognition
Counter timing
Adjustment speed
Risk calculation accuracy

Capabilities define possibility and consistency, not personality.

3. Tendency Slider System (Very Deep)

Implement a plethora of tendency sliders that meaningfully alter behavior:

Engagement

Pressure frequency
Reset frequency
Exchange willingness
Clinch seeking / avoidance
Early-round caution
Late-round urgency

Shot Selection

Jab-first bias
Double-jab usage
Body vs head focus
Lead vs rear preference
Uppercut frequency
Combo length preference
Single-shot vs volume bias

Defensive Habits

High guard reliance
Shell usage
Long guard usage
Slip direction bias
Roll preference
Pull-counter usage
Catch-and-shoot tendency

Footwork Habits

Circle direction bias
Pivot frequency
Step-out vs step-back
Rope escape behavior
Ring center priority
Cut-off commitment

Psychological Tendencies

Patience vs impatience
Risk tolerance
Revenge behavior after being hit
Emotional volatility
Confidence gain/loss rate
Discipline under pressure

Finishing Instincts

Swarm vs snipe vs trap
Body-first finishing
Head-first finishing
Overcommit risk when opponent is hurt

Tendencies must directly affect:

Action weighting
Distance selection
Timing windows
Risk evaluation
Round strategy

4. Trait System (Behavioral Overrides)

Design a trait system that can temporarily override normal logic, such as:

Dangerous when hurt
Slow starter / fast starter
Momentum-based fighter
Body investment specialist
Clinch disruptor
Veteran round manager
Emotionally fragile or ice-cold
Crowd-responsive

Traits must create recognizable moments, not passive bonuses.

5. Mannerisms & Expression

Implement systems that add human texture, including:

Rhythm and cadence
Guard posture
Feint language
Breathing behavior
Reset animations
Corner behavior
Ref interactions

Mannerisms must respond dynamically to:

Fatigue
Damage
Confidence
Fight context

6. Psychology & Internal State Modeling

Maintain internal AI states such as:

Confidence
Composure
Frustration
Momentum perception
Urgency (round, score, fight state)

These states must influence:

Reaction speed
Risk tolerance
Shot commitment
Defensive caution
Adaptation speed

7. Ringcraft & Spatial Intelligence

Implement true ring awareness:

Center control goals
Rope danger scoring
Corner risk evaluation
Exit lane analysis
Cut-off geometry
Trap construction and escape logic

Movement must be intentional, not chase-based.

8. Opportunity-Based Combat Logic

All offense must be driven by:

Guard gaps
Rhythm breaks
Weight transfer moments
Post-punch vulnerability
Counter exposure risk

AI must support:

Feint-aborts
Half-commits
Combo truncation
Opportunistic counters

9. Unreal Engine Integration

Required expertise includes:

DataAssets / DataTables for all sliders
Behavior Trees or StateTree
Animation Montages & Motion Warping
Clean AI → animation → hit → response pipelines
Network-safe logic (if applicable)

Designers must be able to tune everything without touching code.

10. Tooling & Debugging (Mandatory)

You will build:

Live AI decision overlays
Slider visualizers
Behavior logs (“why this happened”)
Ring heatmaps
Adaptation tracking tools
Replay variability controls

Explainability is not optional.

Required Qualifications

Strong Unreal Engine AI experience
Proven work on systemic, non-scripted AI
Deep understanding of boxing fundamentals
Experience building designer-facing tools
Strong debugging and profiling skills
Systems-thinking mindset

Preferred Qualifications

Sports, fighting, or simulation game experience
Large-scale slider systems
Gameplay Ability System familiarity
Offline + online system awareness
Passion for realism and long-term depth

Evaluation Criteria

Candidates will be evaluated on their ability to:

Create believable boxer identities
Explain AI decisions clearly
Avoid shortcuts and cheats
Support designers
Build scalable systems
Respect boxing as a craft, not an arcade abstraction

Example Technical Evaluation

Candidates may be asked to:

Design a boxer identity system using sliders, traits, and tendencies
Demonstrate opportunity-based punch selection
Show how adaptation occurs across rounds
Provide debug output explaining decisions
Discuss how realism is preserved at higher difficulty

Final Statement

This role exists to ensure players are not fighting AI—
they are fighting boxers.

The measure of success is not win rate.
It is whether players believe the opponent thinks, reacts, adapts, and behaves like a real human boxer.